Highspeed rail is B$it

[Reiwa]

Originally Posted by Danth [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

A big part of it is safety regulations. There are significant crashworthiness laws in place, and it's usually stricter for equipment expected to run high rates of speed. Most of the equipment used by tourist railroads, for example, would be illegal in high-speed service.

I do not disagree with such regulations; I don't want to be speeding around at 120 MPH in 19th century-style wood frame coaches. It goes back to the basic point, you can either be fast or you can be cheap, but you can't be both. EDIT: Look up historic rail crashes where you had coaches telescoping into each other and you'll quickly realize why such requirements are necessary.

Really think you can say they're heavy compared to diesel trains carrying freight?

[Danth]

Originally Posted by Reiwa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Really think you can say they're heavy compared to diesel trains carrying freight?

Yes, immensely so, in terms of tare weights. A typical modern coal car might weigh perhaps thirty tons or so and carry several times its own weight of paying load. A passenger coach weights upwards of seventy tons and carries only a few dozen people. From a loading standpoint, passenger rail amounts to running effectively empty trains.

Also, freight trains don't run fast. Thirty to fifty miles an hour is plenty for most freight railroads. The amount of power you need to continue accelerating at high rates of speed increases very rapidly. It takes more power to operate a 600 ton passenger train at 150 MPH and accelerate it to that speed within reasonable distances than it takes to run a 6000 ton coal drag at 25 MPH.

Don't get me wrong. I *like* rail transport. I just don't like it being sold as something it is not. It's perfect for congestion reduction and for fitting your transportation corridors underground or other places that don't matter. It's not great at being cheap. Sometimes being cheap isn't the end-all. Improving quality of life warrants some expense.

Danth

[Reiwa]

Originally Posted by Danth [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yes, immensely so, in terms of tare weights. A typical modern coal car might weigh perhaps thirty tons or so and carry several times its own weight of paying load. A passenger coach weights upwards of seventy tons and carries only a few dozen people. From a loading standpoint, passenger rail amounts to running effectively empty trains.

Also, freight trains don't run fast. Thirty to fifty miles an hour is plenty for most freight railroads. The amount of power you need to continue accelerating at high rates of speed increases very rapidly. It takes more power to operate a 600 ton passenger train at 150 MPH and accelerate it to that speed within reasonable distances than it takes to run a 6000 ton coal drag at 25 MPH.

Don't get me wrong. I *like* rail transport. I just don't like it being sold as something it is not. It's perfect for congestion reduction and for fitting your transportation corridors underground or other places that don't matter. It's not great at being cheap. Sometimes being cheap isn't the end-all. Improving quality of life warrants some expense.

Danth

Isn't that whole idea to not run passenger trains on the freight rails?

Oh my god shutup.

[Danth]

Originally Posted by Reiwa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Isn't that whole idea to not run passenger trains on the freight rails?

Oh my god shutup.

Eh? Of course you run the passenger trains on separate routes, but the same physics and regulations still apply. The point is that the public usually equates rail with efficient because freight rail is very efficient, but highspeed passenger rail is an entirely different beast. It's a hard sell in North America.

[Reiwa]

Originally Posted by Danth [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Eh? Of course you run the passenger trains on separate routes, but the same physics and regulations still apply. The point is that the public usually equates rail with efficient because freight rail is very efficient, but highspeed passenger rail is an entirely different beast. It's a hard sell in North America.

Let's go back a sec. What makes either train itself, without cargo, heavier?

Why would a train designed to carry, as you say "several dozen passengers" weigh over double that of a train designed to carry freight by the tonnes?

I have to think you are arguing in bad faith, because you cannot actually be this stupid.

[Danth]

Originally Posted by Reiwa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Let's go back a sec. What makes either train itself, without cargo, heavier?

Why would a train designed to carry, as you say "several dozen passengers" weigh over double that of a train designed to carry freight by the tonnes?

I have to think you are arguing in bad faith, because you cannot actually be this stupid.

Don't believe me, why don't you look it up yourself? Yes, passenger equipment in the U.S. is absurdly heavy for what it carries due to a combination of factors. Partly it's because humans are low-density cargo, people like space, and space means weight. Partly it's crash regulations, your passenger coach has to hold together and not telescope if it comes off the rails at 120 MPH, nobody much cares if a coal hopper tears apart when it tips over at 30 MPH. It is possible to achieve some degree of weight reduction by use of composite materials and less stringent crash resistances, as done by some of the very high-speed trainsets used in other nations, but passenger equipment is always going to be very heavy for what it hauls due to the nature of the business.

Danth

[Reiwa]

Originally Posted by Danth [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Don't believe me, why don't you look it up yourself? Yes, passenger equipment in the U.S. is absurdly heavy for what it carries due to a combination of factors. Partly it's because humans are low-density cargo, people like space, and space means weight. Partly it's crash regulations, your passenger coach has to hold together and not telescope if it comes off the rails at 120 MPH, nobody much cares if a coal hopper tears apart when it tips over at 30 MPH. It is possible to achieve some degree of weight reduction by use of composite materials and less stringent crash resistances, as done by some of the very high-speed trainsets used in other nations, but passenger equipment is always going to be very heavy for what it hauls due to the nature of the business.

Danth

I'm not gonna look it up cuz you made it up, don't waste my time. Passenger trains are lighter than freight trains and that's that, mister. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I will pray for you to Torquemada

[robayon]

Trains are cleaner and safer than planes, you wear a suit on a train but you can wear your basketball shorts and thin sweater on the plane

RyanAir/Easyjet are more comparable to a sky-bus than a normal plane. I have taken the chunnel and the eurail all over and the shinkansen, they're much nicer

Except when that guy jacked off in the sleeper car from Amsterdam to Paris, but that isn't the fault of the vehicle type and it also happens in hostels